High Court Kerala High Court

K.R.Devadas vs State Of Kerala on 11 June, 2007

Kerala High Court
K.R.Devadas vs State Of Kerala on 11 June, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 164 of 2007()


1. K.R.DEVADAS, AGED 40 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. K.M.PRAKASHAN, AGED 46 YEARS,
3. P.SARADA DEVI,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.SANTHOSH  (PODUVAL)

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :11/06/2007

 O R D E R
                               R.BASANT, J.

                            ----------------------

                           Crl.M.C.No.164 of 2007

                        ----------------------------------------

                   Dated this the 11th day of June 2007




                                   O R D E R

The petitioners are accused 2 to 4 in a prosecution under

Section 304A I.P.C. They, along with the first accused, face the

allegations. The first accused is the proprietor of Rohini Cable

Vision which gives cable network connection to domestic

consumers. Petitioners 2 to 4 are the Lineman, Sub Engineer

and Assistant Engineer, all employed by the Kerala State

Electricity Board. The crux of the allegations is that a cable

network connection was given to the house of deceased Radha,

sister-in-law of the second respondent. On the unfortunate day,

she got electrocuted when she was attempting to use the

television with the cable network connection. The crime was

registered initially under the caption ‘unnatural death’ and on

receipt of Annexure D report from the Electrical Inspector, an

allegation under Section 304A I.P.C was raised against the first

accused only.

Crl.M.C.No.164/07 2

2. Long later, on 09/03/2006, a private complaint

Annexure E was filed by the second respondent and the learned

Magistrate referred the same to the police under Section 156(3)

Cr.P.C. A separate crime is registered against accused 1 to 4 –

evidently ignorant of the fact that an earlier crime was

registered. Investigation was conducted. In the course of

investigation both the crimes were consolidated and a common

chargesheet was filed against accused 1 to 4. The crux of the

contention it would appear is that the cable connection was

given negligently and consequently the live electricity wire and

the cable network connection wire got intertwined resulting

inflow of electric current through the cable network line

resulting in electric shock to the deceased and her eventual

death.

3. The petitioners have come before this court with the

grievance that they have been unnecessarily and unfairly

arrayed as accused. It is their contention that they have been

arrayed as accused only to facilitate a claim for compensation

against the Kerala State Electricity Board. It is submitted that

they have absolutely no responsibility for the unfortunate

Crl.M.C.No.164/07 3

occurrence that have taken place. No specific allegation is

raised about the date on which the connection was given. But it

is evident from the materials that connection was given long

prior to the date of the occurrence proper. The learned counsel

for the petitioners contends that even if it be assumed that there

were some inadequacy in the connection given by the first

accused and that the accident have taken place because of the

intertwining of the live electricity wire and the cable network

wire, the petitioners could not be mulcted with any culpable

responsibility for that unfortunate consequence. The materials

indicate that such connection was existing even earlier. There is

nothing to show that the petitioners were aware of the

intertwining of the two wires on the date in question. There is

not even an allegation that they had the legal duty to examine

such wires on all dates or immediately prior to the unfortunate

occurrence. The petitioners were not aware of the alleged

intertwining of the wires. At any rate, they have no legal

obligation or duty to inspect the wires at every point of time.

They having not been informed of such intertwining, lightly

allegations of culpable negligence cannot be raised against them.

Crl.M.C.No.164/07 4

They cannot be held guilty of any culpable negligence resulting

in the death of the deceased.

4. The learned counsel for the second respondent and

the learned Public Prosecutor only submit that the Kerala State

Electricity Board has the moral and legal responsibility to ensure

that the connection is given only properly by the first accused

and in not having ensured that petitioners 1 to 3, that is accused

2 to 4, must be held to be culpably negligent and liable to answer

the charge under Section 304A I.P.C. I am unable to agree with

the learned counsel for the respondent. In the facts and

circumstances of this case, there is nothing tangible to show that

the petitioners were guilty of any culpable negligence. Their

knowledge of the intertwining of the wires is not allegedly

indicated. There is nothing to indicate that they had the duty at

every given point of time to inspect and ensure the safety of the

arrangement. In fact, there is nothing to show that they have

seen or known of the intertwining of the wires.

5. The first accused may be responsible. The Electricity

Board may also be liable under civil law. May be the petitioners

will also have to answer the allegation of civil negligence. But,

Crl.M.C.No.164/07 5

at any rate, the facts and circumstances alleged in this case, do

not at all reveal or indicate any specific circumstance which can

help the prosecution to make an allegation of culpable

negligence on the part of petitioners 1 to 3 (accused 2 to 4) for

the unfortunate death of the victim. I am satisfied, in these

circumstances, that continuance of the prosecution against

petitioners 2 to 4 would amount to needless harassment and

vexation to the petitioners and consequently the prosecution in

so far as it relates to them deserves to be quashed.

6. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is

allowed. C.C.No. 1241/06 pending before the Judicial First Class

Magistrate Court-I, Thrissur, in so far as the petitioners/accused

2 to 4 are concerned is hereby quashed. I may hasten to observe

at the risk of repetition that I have not chosen at all to make any

observation on the liability of the Kerala State Electricity Board

or the petitioners to compensate the legal heirs/dependents of

the deceased for the loss suffered by them.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

jsr

Crl.M.C.No.164/07 6

Crl.M.C.No.164/07 7

R.BASANT, J.

CRL.M.CNo.

ORDER

21ST DAY OF MAY2007